1FZ engine building and blueprinting

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Definitely not.
I may use a stock cam as baseline, not sure yet. I may just even blueprint whole engine to complete stock to see what I get, and as a baseline, not sure yet.
Main thing now is teardown and measure all stock (worn specs, but I don't think by much) just to see how far out from stock blueprint an average 1FZFE is, and how much tolerance stackup there may or may not be. Very curious, just for fun.
Eventually I want to do a stroker and other mods, but this is going to take a while.
Still learning to measure accurately; I have measured some cam intake lobes (will post when I perfect) so far intake is ranging (mostly from my measurement skills) from 0.3395 to 0.4026" lift. Using electronic calipers, micrometers, and electronic dial indicator. Indicators seem most accurate and consistent, but I am still having variances on a single lobe. It seems a slight change in indicator angle can change measurement, so I will practice on one lobe until I get it right, then record and post them all.
 
Haha well I guess you can rebuild it back to stock specs but I think you'll most that have spent the time and cost found the engine to still be missing the power they were hoping for. I definitely get the fun of measuring everything and doing the research I just think if it's all a part, why not experiment a little. We have a lot of dyno info on stock 1FZ's, would be cool to see what you came up with, with some clean up work, a cam, the shimless buckets I found, and maybe a slight bump in compression and displacement.
 
scottryana said:
Haha well I guess you can rebuild it back to stock specs but I think you'll most that have spent the time and cost found the engine to still be missing the power they were hoping for. I definitely get the fun of measuring everything and doing the research I just think if it's all a part, why not experiment a little. We have a lot of dyno info on stock 1FZ's, would be cool to see what you came up with, with some clean up work, a cam, the shimless buckets I found, and maybe a slight bump in compression and displacement.
Click to expand...

What have you found on dynod stock motors? Very interesting, has anyone ever fully blueprinted and dynod? I wouldn't expect much more than stock, but if it's been done I may skip,and go straight to build up. Save a s**tload of wrk. But I will still do the diagnostic teardown.
Just for the halibut. But I also want to look at all the clearance issues for a potential big stroker. Maybe I just build a big naturally aspirated to start,
 
I'm gonna wait for full teardown to order parts. I'm looking at a 110 stroker Crank from Oz z but doubtful it will work. If not, pretty sure a 107 will. Then head work cams etc. Still want driveable low torque band tho'.
Learned something interesting on the web: Torque and hp curves always cross at 5200 rpm, no matter what. Very interesting stuff. If you are interested I will dig up article and post.
 
They always cross at 5252RPMs, The formula for calculating HP from torque is HP = T * RPM / 5252

I think a 110mm stroke is too big. Too much variation. I would try to stay a little more mild. 105mm stroke X 101mm bore = 5.047L compared to 95mm stroke X 100mm bore = 4.477L.

You pick up almost a 13% increase in size. You have to remember you need to be a little careful, if you increase MAF flow more than 19-20% you will throw CEL.



hazard said:
I'm gonna wait for full teardown to order parts. I'm looking at a 110 stroker Crank from Oz z but doubtful it will work. If not, pretty sure a 107 will. Then head work cams etc. Still want driveable low torque band tho'.
Learned something interesting on the web: Torque and hp curves always cross at 5200 rpm, no matter what. Very interesting stuff. If you are interested I will dig up article and post.
Click to expand...
 
Many 1FZs have been dyno'd on AWD dyne's and the stock engine that Toyota states makes 212HP will actually put about 130-140AWHP to the ground. The major losses are in the transmission and full-time transfercase. The later A750 transmission Toyota claims robs 13% less horsepower.

One of the most famous rebuilds that had a few little tweaks would be Joey's truck. He did a little port and polish work, bored out to 101mm I believe and had a well known engine shop put his together. He still ended up with a SC'r. @NLXTACY

I really do not think you are going to gain a lot just blueprinting this engine. I understand you are used to working on older SBC engines. The tolerances on the 1FZ when new are factors better than the old SBC's. Not to mention you have very strict air/fuel control with the MAF, fuel and timing tables and O2 sensors. So unless you make significant changes the gains won't be there you are going to be limited to about 20% power increases unless you start playing with MAF housing size, etc.



hazard said:
What have you found on dynod stock motors? Very interesting, has anyone ever fully blueprinted and dynod? I wouldn't expect much more than stock, but if it's been done I may skip,and go straight to build up. Save a s**tload of wrk. But I will still do the diagnostic teardown.
Just for the halibut. But I also want to look at all the clearance issues for a potential big stroker. Maybe I just build a big naturally aspirated to start,
Click to expand...
 
scottryana said:
They always cross at 5252RPMs, The formula for calculating HP from torque is HP = T * RPM / 5252

I think a 110mm stroke is too big. Too much variation. I would try to stay a little more mild. 105mm stroke X 101mm bore = 5.047L compared to 95mm stroke X 100mm bore = 4.477L.
You pick up almost a 13% increase in size. You have to remember you need to be a little careful, if you increase MAF flow more than 19-20% you will throw CEL.
Click to expand...

I'm learning lots of new stuff. It's actually been about 20 years since I built any engines and tech has seriously changed. I only ever worked on carb'ed engines. I have worked on large (GM, Cummins 12 litres etc) Diesel FE, a lot, but even then mostly pre electronic.
Most likely if I go full meal I will be into complete aftermarket ecu etc. But all that will be a long time researching etc. Quick research has me thinking Holley or Haltech. Probably Holley as the dominator may be able to control trans, if not, then separate aftermarket tcu.
 
scottryana said:
Many 1FZs have been dyno'd on AWD dyne's and the stock engine that Toyota states makes 212HP will actually put about 130-140AWHP to the ground. The major losses are in the transmission and full-time transfercase. The later A750 transmission Toyota claims robs 13% less horsepower.

One of the most famous rebuilds that had a few little tweaks would be Joey's truck. He did a little port and polish work, bored out to 101mm I believe and had a well known engine shop put his together. He still ended up with a SC'r. @NLXTACY

I really do not think you are going to gain a lot just blueprinting this engine. I understand you are used to working on older SBC engines. The tolerances on the 1FZ when new are factors better than the old SBC's. Not to mention you have very strict air/fuel control with the MAF, fuel and timing tables and O2 sensors. So unless you make significant changes the gains won't be there you are going to be limited to about 20% power increases unless you start playing with MAF housing size, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't really expect to gain much with the blueprint, it's just a perfectionists hobby for me. If it's possible I will engine Dino, but not likely. I would love to know though. We'll see what I find in the teardown, but so far things are pretty on spec, at least as far as any noticeable gains would be.
One reason I will do detailed cam specs and checking volumes of all ports, runners, plenums etc, and especially cam specs, is that I have been using a pro version of an engine simulator, but without all those specs it doesn't give the best results. I have simulated a s close to stock as I can and it helps with simulating stroker combos. It's pretty detailed and can give me piston acceleration. Rod angles and just about anything you can think of. Even very small changes can change torque curve substantially. One of the interesting things is the curves by changing cam timing up and down.
Wish I didn't have a day job as this is way more fun. Work is slowing down this hobby!
 
hazard said:
I don't really expect to gain much with the blueprint, it's just a perfectionists hobby for me. If it's possible I will engine Dino, but not likely. I would love to know though. We'll see what I find in the teardown, but so far things are pretty on spec, at least as far as any noticeable gains would be.
One reason I will do detailed cam specs and checking volumes of all ports, runners, plenums etc, and especially cam specs, is that I have been using a pro version of an engine simulator, but without all those specs it doesn't give the best results. I have simulated a s close to stock as I can and it helps with simulating stroker combos. It's pretty detailed and can give me piston acceleration. Rod angles and just about anything you can think of. Even very small changes can change torque curve substantially. One of the interesting things is the curves by changing cam timing up and down.
Wish I didn't have a day job as this is way more fun. Work is slowing down this hobby!
Click to expand...


Just dug up the simulator reports. Shows stock as 303 tq @ 4000 rpm and HP as 268 @5000 rpm. But that is with very few inputs as I don't have them and it calculates best possible if no inputs given. It advanced cams by 3.8 degrees.
Same inputs except stroke to 105 resulted in 331 tq @ 4000, and 271 hp @ 4500, only about 10% improvement in Torque and less in HP, but, of course one would have to improve breathing to see better results.
A great piece of software but expensive. I had a 10 day free trial and did a bunch of simulations and saved them. I may buy it in future once I finish getting all stock specs.
It has huge amount of variable inputs for turbos etc even down to plenum size, runner length etc etc. Data outputs are amazing. Might be interesting to input your build. After research the one I chose was Engine Analyzer Pro.

http://performancetrends.com/Engine Analyzer Programs Comparison Table.htm
 
You can run the standalone engine ECU in parallel with the stock computer so it still controls the trans if you don't want to deal with trans control. It's how I setup my grey truck and it works flawlessly that way. The only thing you might miss out on if you go big power on the engine is many people do a slight timing cut right before the trans shifts so it drops torque during the shift. It's harder to do with 2 separate computers but not impossible. In my black truck I will likely go full manual valve body so the trans control will not be a variable.


hazard said:
I'm learning lots of new stuff. It's actually been about 20 years since I built any engines and tech has seriously changed. I only ever worked on carb'ed engines. I have worked on large (GM, Cummins 12 litres etc) Diesel FE, a lot, but even then mostly pre electronic.
Most likely if I go full meal I will be into complete aftermarket ecu etc. But all that will be a long time researching etc. Quick research has me thinking Holley or Haltech. Probably Holley as the dominator may be able to control trans, if not, then separate aftermarket tcu.
Click to expand...
 
OGBeno said:
I don't know if this will help, but here is the SAE paper regarding the 1FZ-FE engine by the three engineers at Toyota who designed it.
Click to expand...

Hi Beno
Thanks this is great stuff, I like the part where they talk about the engine as a "lightweight" package with increased economy. True back then I guess, hard to believe that was printed almost 25 years ago!
This , besides being very interesting and a cool piece of history, only helps a little.
What I would love most would be an actual blueprint, or tech drawing of the engine, reciprocating parts, head etc. Ideally design specs for whole package showing port volumes and designed velocity, cam specs, etc.info
Probably the only people having this would be Toyota in Japan. I thought about contacting them but wouldn't know where to start. They might not want to give it out anyway.
If you know anyone I might contact, or anyone who might have even some of that info, please share with me.
I will complete the project regardless, and post all here for anyone to see. I think it will still have much validity as I do have most the min/max specs from the engine manual.
Thanks again.
 
scottryana said:
You can run the standalone engine ECU in parallel with the stock computer so it still controls the trans if you don't want to deal with trans control. It's how I setup my grey truck and it works flawlessly that way. The only thing you might miss out on if you go big power on the engine is many people do a slight timing cut right before the trans shifts so it drops torque during the shift. It's harder to do with 2 separate computers but not impossible. In my black truck I will likely go full manual valve body so the trans control will not be a variable.
Click to expand...

Thanks Scotty, good info on the retard before shift, never thought of that one.
More and more now, especially after reading the SAE paper Beno posted above, I am considering a full stock blueprint to start, just as an interesting exercise.
I will still start buying parts for the build, starting with stroker crank as soon as I decide what will fit.
I may even buy another used engine and build it separately. If you know of any cheap ones let me know. I paid $1500 Canadian for this eng/trans/transfer and would like cheaper. Of course that's only about $1000 USD!
Just got my Scale in the mail will get cam specs done soon and start tear down and weights. Can't fit flywheel on engine stand so will skip compression test and do a cold leak down instead.
 
OGBeno said:
They will not provide you with that information. That is internal proprietary intellectual property.
Click to expand...
Kind of figured that, I'm pretty sure some of the info should be floating around out there hopefully at least cam specs.
I think the low end specifications from the rebuild manual would probably be the blueprint specs anyway, so still valid
Thanks
 
Back at it. I haven't been away just been busy.
Basically finished diagnostic teardown. Found a lot of interesting details on this 170,000 mile engine. Have measured just about everything and will start posting soon. All looks basically good but definitely ready for a hone, rings and rod bearings.
Stay tuned.
 
Ok lets begin. I have a bit of time then I am away for a few weeks to see my 80 down in Baja.
In order to do this project I had to buy about $2,000 worth of precision measuring tools, the certified straight edge alone was $400. Buying was the easy part. Learning to use them well has been quite an experience. I realize now measuring is quite an art.
In all my following posts I will say if measurements are good or only reasonable. I will make multiple posts so no one post is too long.
All measurements and tests were done multiple times until I achieved good repeatability, and therefore more likely better accuracy.

Before I tore down I did a few tests (also notes from later in the debuild):

1. Torque to crank engine; Full Longblock with valve train, no accessories, 25 ft Lbs. Using a Snap on Digital Torque wrench.
2. Torque to crank shortblock 7.5 ft lbs.
3. Torque to crank shortblock with no pistons (crank only) - unmeasurable with my wrench. very low.

Couldn't do a compression test as couldn't fit flywheel while on stand. Cranking it hard and fast by hand got pressure well over 100 psi. Slow crank was at 50psi, all seemed about equal. Toyota spec is 171 psi with min 128 at 250 rpm. Pretty sure this engine would be about 1/2 way there.
Was able to do a cold leakdown test though, which I always felt was better, and it tell you where the leakage is. Most people say engine should be hot but researching the web it is a very arguable topic. My results:
# 1. 14% leakage some from exhaust valve but mostly from rings. #2. 22% again some exhaust but mostly rings.
#3. 24% exhaust and rings #4. 25% Lots of exhaust and rings.
#5. 17% exhaust and rings #6 12% all ring leakage no valves
These are actually pretty good numbers but they are too wide apart at a variance of up to 13%. I learned later that I might have changed results by rocking the piston a bit to be sure rings were seated, and tapping the valves to see if they seat better. Wish I could have done that, and tried it warm to see how different it would be. Oh well still learned. Intake valves good, exhaust valves need doing, rings and hone needed, for optimum performance, but still lots of miles left as is.

Any comments?
 
With head still on the next important item was finding true top dead center of each cylinder.
I tried multiple techniques but the most accurate was using a piston stop. Don't try drilling spark plug, it's damn near impossible, I tried that first. I made one out of a spark plug. Quickest and easiest way was to saw off the side electrode, then wiggle the center electrode back and forth a bit. If done right the porcelain surrounding the center breaks off at the base and falls out. Then bend the electrode back and forth until it breaks off. Then drill out the threads and tap for a piece of ready rod or headless bolt. I tried a number of bolt lengths but most repeatable and accurate was one that stopped the piston in the 20 degree range.
I also tried using a dial indicator on a TDC tool I bought. The tdc tool is great for a quick reference but that's about it, definitely worth having one in your box though. See pics. Results in next post.
IMG_3531.webp
IMG_3533.webp
 
TDC results:
I am very confident in these results as I tried multiple ways. Dial indicator, while accurate, is to hard to be perfect as there is so much piston dwell,( forgot to record this but I recall it was almost 10 degrees). I did piston stop method, both with head on and off and results were similar. I trust the results with head of most so that is what I am posting.
All referenced to # 1 at TDC. Each cylinder fires 120 degrees after the last one in the firing order. I wanted to see if the TDC timing was correct for each. In other words I was checking crankshaft for phasing accuracy. I re checked # 1 TDC before each consecutive cyl test, and did this test multiple times head on and off:
#1 TDC reference #6 fires at 360 degrees, was perfect TDC.
#2 Fired early at 479 5/8 , should have been 480 so it was 3/8 degree early.
#3 Fired early at 238 1/2 Degrees, should be 240 so it was 1 1/2 degree early.
#4 Fired late at 599 1/2 degrees, should have been 600 so it was 1/2 degree early.
#5 Fired late at 120 3/8 degrees, should have been 120, so it was 3/8 degree late.
Stock balancer mark was 1/2 degree late from true #1 TDC.
I was quite surprised by these results and can begin to see how tolerance stack up could happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom